What Does the Landowner Think?

(1)

Master’s Thesis 2016 30x2 ECTS

Department of Ecology and Natural Resources Management/Institutt for Naturforvaltning

- A landowner survey about red deer management along the west coast of Norway

Hva mener grunneieren?

-

En grunneierundersøkelse om

hjorteforvaltning langs vestkysten av Norge

Hans Bull & Mikkel Slaaen Kvernstuen

Management of Natural Resources/Naturforvaltning

(2)

(3)

I

Acknowledgements

With this master thesis, we complete our five-year study programme in Ecology and Natural Resources Management. We have spent the two last years at the Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU). Several people have helped us through our final journey and we want to show our thanks to them.

Our head supervisor, Professor in Natural Science Leif Egil Loe (NMBU), with statistical analyses and feedback during the process.

Co-supervisor, Professor Atle Mysterud (University of Oslo), for useful contributions, including the dialog with Norwegian forest owner associations and Norwegian Farmer`s Union during to the data collection.

Co-supervisor, Professor in Social Science Katrin Prager from the James Hutton Institute.

Thank you for hosting us during our trip to Aberdeen, Scotland, and for giving us an insight in social science. We still have our wooden spoons.

We must not forget to thank all the landowners who participated in our survey. Without them, this thesis would not exist.

In addition, we would like to thank our roommates and fellow students, including

Soerhellinga vin- og konditorlaug for interesting discussions, exiting lotteries and tasty cakes.

Finally, we want to thank each other for a faithful cooperation, and for still being friends.

Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, 13^th May 2016.

Hans Bull Mikkel Slaaen Kvernstuen

(4)

II

Abstract

To know the degree of stakeholders’ agreement, or opposition to policies, can be of great importance for successful management. Simultaneously, there is a need for knowledge that combine wildlife and social interactions. In the management of ungulates in Norway, the landowner is a main stakeholder because of their hunting rights to their property. They are often actively involved in the practical aspects of hunting and define the aims of perennial management plans. Their thoughts, interests and commitment can therefore be key elements to functioning wildlife management. There are few studies addressing ungulate management based on social aspects in Scandinavia. We designed a web-based questionnaire for

landowners in five counties along the west coast of Norway. Through this thesis, we wanted to explore landowner’s different opinions and attitudes surrounding the present management of red deer (Cervus elaphus). An important focus was to examine the state of satisfaction and cooperation within various management units. Further, we were especially interested to

investigate which improvements the landowner think are necessary in order to achieve a better deer management and how any of these changes are considered appropriate.

This thesis shows a general overview of landowners’ attitudes towards red deer management.

Our main findings indicate that landowners, in general, are satisfied with current practices.

The degree of satisfaction with organizations and cooperation of red deer management were highest in local management units and decreased with the spatial scale. Landowners disagree that increased size of local management unit (vald) is a solution to improve current

management. Despite this, we did find a correlation between proportions satisfied and size of local management units, where landowners involved in large valds were most satisfied.

Cooperation is something that landowners perceive as preferable to achieve management objectives, and these views are not only limited to self-centred interests, but also considered in a larger perspective. They tolerate a certain browsing damage on pastures up to a threshold value, simultaneously an increased quota would affect the degree of satisfaction. Although larger areas are appropriate in a management perspective considering migratory red deer, landowners’ ability to interact over equivalent areas can be a challenge.

(5)

III

Sammendrag (Norwegian abstract)

Innsikt i interessegruppers grad av enighet, eller motsatt, er viktig for å oppnå en vellykket forvaltning. Samtidig er det behov for kunnskap som kombinerer viltforvaltning og sosiale interaksjoner. På bakgrunn av grunneierens ansvar for organisering av jakt, sammenstilling av forvaltningsplaner og jaktrettigheter på deres eiendom, er grunneieren ansett som en viktig interessegruppe i norsk hjorteforvaltning. Grunneierens tanker, interesser og engasjement kan derfor være nøkkelfaktorer for fungerende forvaltning. Det finnes få studier som adresserer hjorteviltforvaltning basert på sosiale aspekter i Skandinavia. Vi gjennomførte en

internettbasert spørreundersøkelse til grunneiere i fem fylker langs vestkysten av Norge.

Gjennom denne oppgaven ville vi med kvantitativ metode undersøke grunneierens meninger og oppfatninger rundt forvaltning av hjort (Cervus elaphus) ut ifra dagens praksis. I tillegg ville vi undersøke graden av fornøydhet og samarbeid i ulike forvaltningsenheter. Videre var vi spesielt interessert i å undersøke hvilke forbedringer grunneier mener er nødvendig for å oppnå en bedre hjorteforvaltning og om disse endringene er gjennomførbare.

Denne oppgaven viser en generell oversikt over grunneierens meninger om dagens

forvaltning. Hovedfunnene våre indikerer at grunneieren er fornøyd med dagens praksis og at samarbeidet fungerer bra i lokale forvaltningsenheter, men at den synker i takt med

hierarkiske inndeling av forvaltningsenhetene (jaktfelt/vald – kommune). De er uenige i at økt størrelse på vald er en løsning for å forbedre dagens forvaltning, til tross for at vi fant en korrelasjon med valdstørrelse og andelen fornøyde grunneiere, der store vald hadde flest fornøyde grunneiere. Videre uttrykker de at de ser nødvendigheten av grunneiersamarbeid tilknyttet hjorteforvaltning og at det er større fordeler enn ulemper med samarbeid.

Grunneiere tolerer ett visst beitetrykk på innmark opp til et terskelnivå, samtidig vil økt kvote påvirke fornøydhetsgraden. Våre resultater tyder på at selv om større areal er passende i et forvaltningsperspektiv med tanke på migrerende hjort, så kan grunneiernes evne til å samhandle over tilsvarende areal være en utfordring.

(6)

IV

1 Introduction

Stakeholder engagement is considered as an important aspect in wildlife management (Decker et al. 2015), and has been promoted as a result of reforming traditional top-down decision- making processes to achieve more sustainable, equitable and enduring governance of the environment and resources (e.g. Berkes 2010). For successful management, the attitudes and perception of relevant stakeholders must be well understood and considered (Sandström 2012). While wildlife management of ungulates has primarily been the territory of natural science, stakeholders’ attitudes are recognised as important implements for management decisions (Gordon et al. 2004). An area with high stakeholder engagement is the management of large carnivores, both in Norway (Figari & Skogen 2011; Skogen 2003), Europe (Dressel et al. 2015) and America (Lute & Gore 2014). In particular to human-wildlife conflicts, the decentralisation of power – central government formally ceding power to actors or institutions at lower political or administrative levels – is crucial (Sandström et al. 2009).

Populations of ungulates have increased both in Europe and North America to high-density levels in the last several decades (Apollonio et al. 2010; Côté et al. 2004; Milner et al. 2006) and constitutes large economic, sociocultural and ecological impact on landscapes (Apollonio et al. 2010). Many factors are considered to explain this population increase, including the socio-ecological aspect, e.g. hunting culture, which incorporate a mixture of beliefs and facts that will influence the composition of harvest rates, and affect management decisions (Milner et al. 2006). To regulate most of the large wildlife species, harvesting through recreational sport hunting is the most widely applied method (Brown et al. 2000). Those who pull the trigger are, in practice, the actor issuing management through population control. Regardless of what some actors may argue, strong interest groups (e.g., hunters’ perceptions), must be taken into account. However, management systems- and hunting practice vary to great extent between European countries with regard to which objectives are pursued (see Apollonio et al.

2010).

Because of ungulates migratory behaviour (Fryxell et al. 1988), conservationist and scientists regard their extensive annual space use as a challenge (Harris et al. 2009). Managing

seasonally migrating ungulates is considered particularly challenging because ungulates can both cause harm and create hunting value that are unevenly distributed between and across administrative borders (Skonhoft & Olaussen 2005). Management units are often too small to

(11)

2

cover even single migratory individuals (Jarnemo 2008), which leads to a mismatch between the hunting units and the biological range size of the target species (Meisingset 2015).

Improved organization with a high level of cooperation between local units is therefore required (Apollonio et al. 2010). However, lack of stakeholder engagement is one of the most obvious reasons for unsuccessful implemented adaptive management (Sandström 2012).

In line with the focus of efficient and sustainable population management, the collaborative management including social networks with a broad group of different stakeholders have recently received more attention in natural resource governance (Bodin & Crona 2009). This has been explored, i.e. integrated wild deer management in United Kingdom, by social scientists (Irvine et al. 2010). In this work, divergent goals between different stakeholder groups are addressed to be barriers to encouraged collaboration of such ecological resources;

with private landowners’ attitudes being the most central. To achieve successful management, the dialog within- and between stakeholders, such as landowners, in addition to wildlife managers and researchers is considered to both be a challenging, but a necessary task (McCleery et al. 2006). Still, few studies concerns landowners’ opinions with respect to the management of ungulates in Scandinavia.

Previous studies considering landowners’ attitudes towards management of ungulates are of economic concern. A typically issue is that increasing population density towards browsing damage on forest stands (Horne & Petäjistö 2003). Here, Finnish landowners preferred a lower population level of moose (Alces alces), even when the benefit from hunting exceeded the cost of browsing damage. In Norway, surveys have targeted the deer hunter (Andersen et al. 2014), in addition to the potential and willingness for the landowners to increased hunting as a commercial activity (Olaussen & Mysterud 2012). The main findings of Olaussen and Mysterud (2012) indicates that the average landowner does have higher costs than income caused by the red deer population. In addition, increased density of deer did not automatically lead to more income or potential income. Otherwise, red deer hunting is an activity for the landowner themselves, with family, friends and local hunters. Concerning commercialisation, the most important issue with the sale of hunting permits was that local hunters are been shut out. By excluding local hunters, the authors consider this issue as an alternative cost than a benefit. In this study, they state that the landowners are satisfied with how things are.

Exceptions from other parts of the world are where deer density affect agricultural producers’

perceptions regarding their desire of future population management (West & Parkhurst 2002).

(12)

3

The Norwegian red deer (Cervus elaphus) moves rapidly between high elevation summer ranges and lowland winter ranges (Mysterud et al. 2011b). The timing of fall migration overlaps with the hunting season (Rivrud et al. 2016), and may result an uneven distribution of hunting benefits on the one hand, and browsing and grazing damages among different landowners on the other hand (Olaussen & Mysterud 2012). Central authorities recently extended and advanced the hunting period. The main reason for this extension was the desire to facilitate a better redistribution of deer during the hunt (Solberg et al. 2015). As a result of this extension, Loe et al. (2016) found a better redistribution of red deer harvested and the harvest increased within management units in inland summer ranges. However, several studies demonstrate the need to include the spatial aspects of large animal behaviour when designing management plans (Kropil et al. 2015; Singh & Milner-Gulland 2011; Skonhoft et al. 2002; Zimmermann et al. 2014). Hence, social and cultural aspects of management need to be accounted for (Milner et al. 2006).

Given that harvest statistics reflect the population trend, the Norwegian red deer population has increased both in density and distribution in the last couple of decades, with a peak of 39.070 red deer harvested in 2010 (Statistic Norway 2016a). Norwegian management of ungulates should include clear goals for the desired population trend in accordance with other values such as forestry, agriculture, biodiversity and societal (Miljødirektoratet 2016). Deer management is organized within three main levels; i) Central authorities (Miljødirektoratet) are responsible for follow up of general laws and regulation, and produces guidelines for management and hunting, including the regulation of hunting period. ii) Municipalities are local authorities that implement the guidelines and regulations from the central authorities.

Lastly, iii) landowners are responsible for the preparation of population plans and have responsibilities for organising the practical hunt. A-long-side these responsibilities, landowners are also involved in coordination with different bordering management units (Miljødirektoratet 2016). Although a landowner holds hunting rights, they must follow the specific quotas given by the management plan (Olaussen & Mysterud 2012). The landowners are free to keep the quota for themselves or rent it out to other hunters (Andersen et al. 2010).

Considering two-thirds of the total land area are private property (Andersen et al. 2010), legal access to hunting areas are frequently distributed through landowners. Because of the

increasing emphasis in which local management population plans of red deer are developed by the landowners based on local knowledge (Andersen et al. 2010), it requires a great

(13)

4

responsibility which makes the landowner a very important part of the management system (Andersen et al. 2009; Olaussen & Mysterud 2012).

In this thesis, we want to explore landowner’s different aspects and attitudes regarding the management of red deer, both how they perceives the current situation, what improvements they think are necessary and how any of these changes can become appropriate. Are the benefits of larger cooperation more important than the drawbacks? Further, how are these opinions affected by the interests of the landowner themselves? Another main goal is to discuss these findings up against management of migratory deer.

(14)

5 1.1 Hypothesis and predictions

H = Hypothesis P = Predictions

H1: Landowners act primarily as hunters and practical, social and meat are the most important aspects from red deer hunting

P1: Income from deer hunting are generally not regarded as important, except for landowners that already have some income from hunting arrangements.

H2: The balance between revenue and damage affects degree of satisfaction P1: Browsing damage decrease satisfaction

P2: Larger quotas increase satisfaction

H3: Local anchoring and simplicity of decision-making affects the satisfaction with deer management

P1: Satisfaction decrease with management level

P2: Local satisfaction decrease with number of landowners H4: Local anchoring affects the cooperation with deer management P1: Cooperation decrease with management level

P2: Local cooperation decrease with number of landowners H5: Benefits of larger cooperation are mainly self-centred

H6: Landowners see increased vald size as an important tool to improve management P1: Landowners are aware that they have migratory deer

P2: Migratory animal’s results in more agreement to increase vald size P3: They see recent changes in hunting period as positive

(15)

6

2 Methods

2.1 The choice of method

Any scientific research project requires a plan that involves several decisions on how you will answer your research questions. The choice of research design is based upon whom and what is going to be the study object. Different from natural science where the study objects are not able to speak, social research – where people are the objects – requires a plan how to

approach a social reality (Babbie 2013). According to Creswell (2009) there are three types of designs: qualitative, quantitative, or combining these into mixed methods. The main

approaches, qualitative and quantitative research are not opposites, but represents different ends of a continuum. While qualitative research aims to explaining issues by using words, quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell 2009). For our thesis, we used a quantitative research approach.

This give us the opportunity to examine a large population, providing numeric description of trends, attitudes or opinions by using a deductive approach (Creswell 2009). Our aim was to reach a population consisting of Norwegian landowners, who hold red deer on their

properties. In Norway, the increase of red deer and issue around red deer management have been localised in the southwestern part of the country (Figure 1). The knowledge of this fact delimits the objects of our study. For data collection we developed questions for a self- administered web survey distributed via emails by using LimeSurvey software (LimeSurvey 2015). Web-based surveys have become a powerful tool in research design both in economic term and rapid turnaround in data collection (Sills & Song 2002). The survey is cross-

sectional, where the data is collected at one point in time (Creswell 2009). The hunting period for red deer in Norway lasts from 1^th September until 23^th December (Solberg et al. 2015), therefore, the survey was send out to landowners via email in January 2016 to ensure that the entire hunting season of 2015 was complete. The reason was that we wanted to ensure an accurate account of the current situation, and with this timing the landowners would have the last hunting season fresh in mind.

(16)

7

Figure 1: Number of red deer felled per 10 km² qualified hunting area in the municipality during hunting season 2015 (Statistic Norway 2016a).

2.2 Study area and research population

To reach the desired population of landowners we sent out the questionnaire in cooperation with Norwegian Forest Owner Associations (NFOA) and Norwegian Farmer`s Union (NFU).

Both organizations cover the whole country.

Through membership lists in the organizations, it was possible to send the survey link to landowners who had registered email addresses in NFOA and NFU. Although, we were told that there was some lack of member information in the organizations` database, at least 5795 invitations were send to Norwegian speaking landowners to participate in the survey. This procedure represents a non-random sampling of participants (Creswell 2009). As stated before the increasing focus on deer management have been localised in the southwestern part of the country. Therefore, the counties included in the study were Rogaland, Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Møre og Romsdal and Sør-Trøndelag. In these five counties, the number of red deer harvest were 30.628 in the hunting season 2015, which is a decline of 1.525 from the previous year (Statistics Norway 2016). This represents over 90% of all red deer harvested in Norway during the hunting season and means that these counties hold the highest red deer populations in the country (Figure 2).

(17)

8

Figure 2. Number of red deer harvested in each county within the study area (Statistic Norway 2016a).

The organizations sent out e-mails independently, in three pools. While NFU directly sent at least 2441 email to their available e-mail addresses distributed on these five counties, NFOA have sub organizations, grouped into several forest owner associations. Vestskog covers Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane counties, while Allskog includes Møre og Romsdal and Sør-Trøndelag within the study area. Vestkog sent out approximately 1000 e- mails and Allskog sent at least 2354. Data collection took place from 15.01.2016-17.02.2016.

Since there is a probability for the landowner to be member in both organizations, we told them to ignore one of the inquires. Because of the possibility of being sent two requests, it is not possible to know the exact number of landowners that have been invited to participate or estimate a correct response rate for our survey.

2.3 The questionnaire

The survey consisted of multiple questions designed to elicit landowners´ opinions about the current red deer management in Norway. A group of nature environment researchers

developed a draft questionnaire in Norwegian based in insights from previous studies (Andersen et al. 2014; Olaussen & Mysterud 2012). The questionnaire was translated into English and passed through several iterations of adjustments, following input from a board consisting of hunters, representatives of landowners, professors in natural sciences and a social scientist. The questionnaire was pilot tested by two representatives of landowners. The final version of the questionnaire was sent out in Norwegian (Appendix 2).

(18)

9

The welcome page of the survey explained the aim of the study. We used NFOA and NFU as sponsors as a strategy since we believed this would increase the likelihood of responses due to the trust of members in their organizations (Fan & Yan 2010). One reminder was send to the participants. However, due to a technical difficulty, one of the organizations did not send out a reminder.

The questionnaire consisted of 88 questions distributed over 10 groups. The first question confirms if their property is used for deer hunting. If the respondent ticks “yes”, they move next to question 2. If the respondent ticks “no”, they directly move to question 16 containing size of vald- hunting field- and property (Appendix 1). Due to this split in the questionnaire structure, those respondents whose property is not used for deer hunting, would not answer the full set of questions.

In general, researchers are interested in determining the extent to which respondents hold a particular perspective or attitude. Therefore, you can present a given statement as a choice- experiment, and ask respondents whether they agree or disagree, or grade of importance by using Likert scale (Likert 1932). We used both questions and statements, which we believe gave the questionnaire more flexibility in the design of items and could make the

questionnaire more interesting for the respondents. Most questions were closed-ended- questions, with some open-ended questions used to elicit additional views or experiences not covered by statements as a last option in some selected groups. This was to ensure that the respondents could submit additional answer too not exclude alternative options (Creswell 2009). None of our questions was compulsory, meaning the respondents did not have to answer all questions to move further in the questionnaire. Consider question 2, 3.1 and 3.2 we ask about how many deer were harvested in the hunting field, how many of each sex and age classes and in which period they were harvested. Here the respondents had to provide

numbers. Multiple responses were allowed for some questions.

(19)

10 2.4 Definitions

With wildlife management in mind, there are several management units to consider. From the municipality to the landowner’s property, many administrative borders are defined in hunting legislation and management programs in how quotas are determined. Understanding these terms is important in order to get an overview of landowners’ attitudes. In addition, the survey included questions about the different management units (Textbox 1). Some Norwegian terms are retained because there is no English equivalent.

Textbox 1. Definitions of local management units (Miljødirektoratet 2016).

A management unit is a social entity where decisions are made with considerations to the unit distribution in time, act and values. The hierarchical subdivision is controlled by the acreage;

1. Landowners property 2. Hunting field

3. Vald

4. Population plan area 5. Municipality

Vald: A vald is the smallest geographical and legal entity that can be allocated a hunting permit from the municipality. A vald may contain other land types than counting acreage, but it is just the qualified area who get allocation of hunting permits.

Hunting field: An area identical to- or smaller than a vald where the respective landowner has the right to hunt within a restricted area. Several landowners may pose a hunting field to achieve a qualified area within a vald. At the other hand, the landowners’ property can be large enough to pose its own hunting field, or even a vald. A vald board distributes the hunting permits within the hunting fields.

Population management plan: An approved perennial (maximum five-year) public plan containing goals for the management with a description of population trends and the annual harvest of cervids.

Population plan area: An area representing two or more valds in a

committed cooperation, where they have common population plan with the same management objectives.

(20)

11 2.5 Data treatment

After the closure of the questionnaire (17.02.2016), we collected the raw data from Lime survey for cleaning in Microsoft Excel. Together, 852 individuals of the landowner entered our survey within the designated period. Because of the memberships list may overlap in county distribution, participants from outside the study area who participated were removed from the data set (n=7). This was most likely due to sending error from one of the

organisations. In addition, participants who entered our survey without adding answers were removed (n=48). This made 811 individual landowners responded one or more questions.

Because of dropouts during the participation, the response rate was decreasing throughout the survey with a full response of 548 in the end. Since the questionnaire was not compulsory, we chose to keep all responses, either if they just had completed group 1 or 10, to keep as many answers as possible. Sub questions were combined into single groups to show how many landowners answered each specific question. A percentage distribution was made from the total number of responses (n). Some questions (9 to 14) that asked of degree of importance- or agree/disagree, were merged from five to three categories. Cross tabulation with the pivot function in excel was used to gather information about relationship between questions as they were or further used in statistical analyses.

2.5.1 Statistical analysis

We used version 3.1.2 R commander (R Core Team 2013) in statistical analyses.

Pearson chi-squared test (Pearson 1900) was used to test for pairwise differences in

distribution of answers across groups of respondents. Generalized linear models (GLM) with a logit link were used for relationship between a response variable and two or more predictor variables. The response variables in the GLM were in all cases a dichotomized version of multilevel answers. As an example, the degree of satisfaction with local deer management (5 options ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied) were dichotomized by assigning

“very satisfied” and “satisfied” value 1 and all other answers value zero. We tested correlation between candidate predictor variables included in the same models. If r>0.6, only one of the variables where included. Hetcor function in R was used to check for correlation coefficients between multiple variables and quantifies correlation between all combinations of numerical and factorial variables.

(21)

12

In order to run statistics for many of the questions/variables it were required to merge into fewer categories to achieve a sufficient sample size within each category. Open-ended questions are interpreted as text and are not analysed statistically. In all statistical analyses, P values less or equal to 0.05, treated as significant.

(22)

13

3 Results

3.1 Description of survey respondents

Landowners who answered the survey were unevenly distributed within the study area. Sør- Trøndelag had the highest fraction (30%), while Sogn & Fjordane the lowest (12%). Sixty- one percent were older than 50 years (Figure 3). The majority of respondents were male (92%). Of all respondents, 93% had properties with deer hunting activity. The majority also live on the property all year (92%), while 5% live there part of the year and remaining 3% do not live there at all.

Figure 3: Age distribution and county response

Twenty percent have properties smaller or equal to 499 acres, 72% between 500 – 4.999 acres and 8% have properties larger than 5.000 acres. Both vald and hunting field differed in size amongst landowners (Table 1). The average vald size is somewhere between 5.000 and 49.999 acres and average hunting field size between 2.000 and 19.000 acres. Seventy-seven percent are stating that they have a perennial management plan for their vald area, 15% do not have, and 8% do not know.

1 % 10 %

28 %

34 % 27 %

Age distribution

18-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 + years

30 %

26 % 18 %

14 % 12 %

County respons

Sør Trøndelag Møre & Romsdal Hordaland Rogaland Sogn & Fjordane

(23)

14

Table 1: Vald and hunting field size (acres)

Vald size % Hunting field size %

< 2000 12% < 500 4%

2.000 – 4.999 11% 500 – 1.999 15%

5.000 – 19.999 25% 2.000 – 4.999 27%

20.000 – 49.999 20% 5.000 – 19.999 38%

> 50.000 22% > 20.000 9%

I don’t know 10% I don’t know 7%

Number of landowners in vald and hunting field diverges to some extent, but for vald it is most common that more than ten landowners are involved (64%) (Table 2).

Table 2: Number of landowners in hunting field and vald

Landowners in hunting field n/% Landowners in vald n/%

Separate 76/11% One vald 30/4%

2-5 landowners 210/30% 2-5 landowners 113/16%

6-10 landowners 203/29% 6-10 landowners 97/14%

>10 landowners 202/29% >10 landowners 451/64%

I don’t know 16/2% I don’t know 12/2%

Income from agricultural production (including livestock) vary between landowners, but average income is somewhere between 50.000 and 249.000 NOK. Main agricultural

production at landowners’ properties is composed of mainly grass (85%). While arable crops (7%), fruit/berries (4%) and other (3%) are less common. To get an opinion regarding

browsing damages at the property, landowners were asked to state the severity of such damages on pastures and forest, where in total 27% stated that they had some or serious damage on forest and 43% had some or serious damage on pasture (Table 3).

Table 3: Extent of browsing damage by deer on forest and pastures owned by the landowner in 2015

Type of damage Serious

damage

Some damage

Little damage

No damage

I dont know

Browsing damage on forest 8% 19% 37% 34% 2%

Browsing damage on pastures 20% 23% 29% 27% 1%

(24)

15

Today’s income from red deer hunting (including any accommodation, guiding, meat sales etc.) are low amongst landowners. Fifty-five percent (n=294) have no income at all, and 90%

have less than 10.000 kr.

When it comes to red deer arrangements, the typical participants involved in the hunt on the landowner’s property are the landowners him/herself with family, friends or local hunters (77%). Of all landowners in the survey, 15% lease all deer hunting at their property, while 11% of the respondent combine these by leasing in some periods. When landowners where asked to state how involved they were in management of deer, 61% said they participated in the practical hunting (i.e., to take part in the act of hunting). Forty-eight percent participate in annual meetings with members of hunting field, vald or management plan area. While

landowners are less involved as contact person for hunting field to the vald (34%) or function as board member in management plan areas (9%). Further, 83% are stating that they in some way are involved in deer management.

3.2 Red deer population size and migration behaviour at landowners property

Majority of landowners think the deer population at their property is appropriate (51%), 30%

thinks it is to large, 16% thinks is to low and remaining 3% do not know.

Landowners tend to know the migration pattern for red deer within their area, and the majority reply that the most common migratory movement is that red deer enter the hunting field throughout the hunting season (57%). A smaller percentage say red deer disappears from the area (27%), while the perception of only having stationary animals seems to be the least common (11%). Only five percent are stating that they do not know (Figure 4).

When landowners where asked of their opinion with respect to the recent changes in hunting season, the majority of landowners states that the situation is better now. Both when the hunting period was advanced from 10^th to 1^thSeptember (55%) and extended to 23^th

December (64%) (Table 4). Further, landowners who states that some or many deer disappear throughout the hunting season were more satisfied (69%) with the earlier start (advanced from 10^th - 1^th Sept.) than landowners who states that some or many deer enter throughout the hunting season (51%); χ² = 12.3, df = 2, P= 0.002). Landowners with some or many deer entering throughout the hunting season are more satisfied (75%) with the longer hunting season (15^th Nov to 23^th Dec) than landowners with some or many deer disappear throughout

(25)

16

the hunting season (52%) (χ² = 24.5, df = 2, P= <0.001).

Figure 4: Do you have migratory deer in your huntning fiald? Mark the most appropriate

Table 4: Management authorities recently extended the legal hunting period. What is your opinion on this change?

Better now

It does not matter

Better before

I don’t know Season start moved

forward from 10

September to 1 September

55% 24% 16% 4%

Season end moved back from 15 November to 23 December

64% 18% 14% 5%

3.3 What does “good deer management” means to landowners

All questions that were presented under this topic had more consensus then disagreement (Figure 5). The most important aspect for landowners is that deer population must be validated against biodiversity and other landscape and conservation goals (75%). That red deer management is conducted in line with a joint management plan also seems to be important (62%).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Some migratory deer enter throughout the hunting season (n=198)

Many migratory deer enter throughout the hunting season (n=115)

Some migratory deer disappear throughout the hunting season (n=70)

Many migratory deer disappear throughout the hunting season (n= 77)

No, mainly stationary deer in the area (n=61) I dont know (n=26)

(26)

17

Questions regarding other considerations within the management, working to reduce deer population to lower the cost of pasture damages (61%) seems to be the main driver for

landowners. Reducing deer population because of browsing damages on forest (53%) and risk of road accidents (40%) have less agreement.

When asked about sex and age classes in harvested animals, more landowners agree to harvest yearlings (55%) than calves (35%). Further, agreement to retain a high proportion of adult hinds (50%) and adult stags (48%) do not differ to this extent. That income is evenly shared between landowners is also something that is important (57%).

Figure 5: What does god deer management means to you?

3.4 Importance of deer hunting aspects

Practical (53%), social (45%) and meat (43%) from deer hunting seems to be the most important aspects for landowners (Figure 6). Income (12%) and trophies (5%) are of least

35%

40%

48%

49%

50%

53%

55%

57%

61%

62%

75%

36%

30%

29%

31%

28%

23%

32%

29%

22%

21%

25%

17%

29%

30%

24%

19%

22%

24%

13%

16%

21%

18%

13%

8%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Having a high proportion of calves in the harvest (n=484) Managing deer numbers to reduce road accidents

(n=487)

Retaining a high proportion of adult stags (n=484) The municipality have an active part to control the deer

management (n=483)

Retaining a high proportion of adult hinds (n=484) Working to reduce deer population to lower the cost of

browsing damage on forest (n=489)

Having a high proportion of yearlings in the harvest (n=481)

Set hunting quotas based on monitoring data (n=479) The icome from deer management is evenly sheared

between the landowners (n=490)

Working to reduce deer population to lower the cost of browsing damage on pastures (n=491) Managing deer according to a joint management plan

(n=484)

To balance deer population with biodiversity and other landscape and conservation goals (n=488)

Agree Neither disagree or agree Disagree

(27)

18

concern. However, the aspect of income from red deer hunting becomes more important for landowners if they already have some income through renting out hunting (χ² = 100, df = 1= P

<0.001) (67.4% versus 18.4%). Further, the aspect income are more important for landowners who do not participate in the practical aspects of hunting (χ² = 15.2, df = 2= P <0.001) (55.5%

versus 37%).

Figure 6: How important are the following aspects of deer hunting to you?

3.5 Satisfaction in red deer management among landowners

In general, the landowners seem to be quite satisfied in how current management is organised at all management levels. However, the proportion of satisfied landowner decreases from hunting field to municipality (Figure 7). Landowners that were dissatisfied with management at the municipality level also thought that municipality should be more involved in deer management (χ² = 37.2, df = 4 P = < 0.001; (Figure 14).

The correlation in degree of satisfaction also decreases with the hierarchical difference in management level. The highest correlation is found between hunting field and vald (Table 5).

5%

12%

43%

45%

53%

24%

32%

44%

28%

71%

56%

13%

27%

19%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Trophies (n=499) Income (n=522) Meat (n=524) Social (n=520) Practical (n=523)

Very important Somewhat important Not important

(28)

19

Figure 7: Are you satisfied with how deer management is currently organised?

Table 5: Correlation between management units in responses to the question “are you satisfied with how deer management is currently organised”

Variables 1 2 3 4

1. Hunting field 1 * * *

2. Vald 0.64 1 * *

3. Management plan area 0.44 0.62 1 *

4. Municipality 0.32 0.34 0.55 1

The size of vald influence the degree of satisfaction in how red deer management is organised (χ² = 9.85, df =4 P = 0.04). Landowners with vald size smaller than 5.000 acres were less satisfied than landowners with larger vald size (Figure 8). Number of landowners in a vald did not affect the degree of satisfaction (χ² = 0.75, df = P = 0.68). Neither are there any

relationship between number of landowners in a hunting field and satisfaction (χ² = 4.56, df = 2, P = 0.102).

43%

46%

65%

75%

33%

36%

21%

17%

24%

17%

14%

8%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Municipality (n=528) Population plan area (n=491) Vald (n=530) Hunting field (n=519)

Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatified

(29)

20

Figure 8: Proportion satisfied landowners in the question “are you satisfied with how deer management is currently organized” as a function of vald size. Small (<2.000 up to 4.999) Medium (5.000-19.9000 – 20.000- 49.999) Large (50.000 or more).

The degree of satisfaction with deer management at vald level increased with quota, but decreased with the level of damage on agricultural pasture (Table 6; Figure 9). There was no correlation between browsing damages on forest and degree of satisfaction at vald level (χ² = 6.85, df = 6, P = 0.33).

Figure 9: Proportion satisfied landowners in the question “are you satisfied with how deer management is currently organized” as a function of total quota and browsing damages on pastures (NA= Not provided or I don’t know).

(30)

21

Table 6: Generalized linear model. Dependent variable: Satisfaction vald level

Estimate SE Z value P value Intercept 0.3220 0.2310 1.39 0.1633 Not provided -0.0149 0.3762 -0.04 0.9683 Some damage 0.4691 0.2904 1.61 0.1062 Serious damage -0.6962 0.2851 -2.44 0.0146

Quota 0.2725 0.1148 2.37 0.0176

3.6 Current experience of cooperation

In line with current organisation of deer management, it seems like landowners perceive cooperation as good (Figure 10). For example, does 65% percent state that cooperation is good among landowners within the hunting field. For cooperation between hunting field in the same vald, most landowners also say that cooperation is good (51%) (Figure 10). The degree of satisfaction is declining with acreage and if there is cooperation between such units.

However, there is only the question about cooperation between municipalities, landowners experience as poor (Figure 10).

We also predicted that the degree of positive view on cooperation would decrease with the number of landowners in hunting field, however there is no significant difference between number of landowners in a hunting field and degree of cooperation (χ² = 0.85, df = 2 P = 0.65). Those who believe that landowners have other goals (see Figure 12) are less likely to state that cooperation is good between landowners. However, there was no such significant correlation among landowners within hunting fields (Table 7).

Likewise, with degree of satisfaction, the similarity in response decreases with the different management categories (Table 8).

(31)

22

Table 7: Generalized linear model. Dependent variable: Goals of other landowner are very different from my own.

Variable Estimate SE Z value P value

Intercept -2.6570 2.7480 -0.001 0.999

Among landowners within hunting field 1.3820 3.8520 0.001 1.000

Intercept 0.5764 0.1627 3.5430 0.001

Between hunting field in the same vald -0.9331 0.2253 -4.14 0.001

Intercept -0.1027 0.1603 -0.64 0.522

Within the management plan area -1.4161 0.2676 -5.49 0.001

Intercept 0.1691 0.1558 1.08 0.277

Between vald/management plan area and municipality -1.3807 0.2399 -5.75 0.001

Intercept -1.1907 0.1852 -6.42 0.001

Between municipalities -1.3806 0.3522 -3.92 0.001

Figure 10: How would you describe the cooperation in relation to deer management as you currently experience it?

Table 8: Correlation in response between management units in the questions “How would you describe the cooperation in relation to deer hunting and management as you currently experience it”

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. Among landowners in same vald 1 * * * *

2. Between hunting fields in same vald 0.50 1 * * *

3. Between vald/management plan area 0.25 0.51 1 * *

4. Within population management plan area 0.17 0.39 0.73 1 *

5. Between municipalities 0.08 0.28 0.61 0.74 1

15%

31%

38%

51%

65%

20%

28%

26%

25%

21%

20%

15%

10%

44%

19%

16%

8%

4%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Between municipalities (n=505) Within population management plan area

(n=493)

Between vald/ management plan area and Municipality (n=509)

Between hunting field in the same vald (n=509) Among landowners within the hunting field

(n=523)

Good Neutral Poor I don't know

(32)

23 3.7 Benefits and drawbacks with cooperation

Landowners seems to agree more in questions regarding benefits (Figure 11) than drawbacks (Figure 12) with cooperation.

One of our hypotheses was that benefits of larger cooperation was mainly self-centred (income, less administrative duties and access to more licenses and larger area is important factors). The least agreed question under this topic, however, is that greater cooperation results in more income (21%). Nor does the larger proportion of landowners agree that less reporting/administrative duties (30%) and paperwork/meetings (19%) are important in this matter. On the other hand, landowners do agree that access to larger areas and more licenses are important benefits of greater cooperation (55%). Benefits of larger cooperation are rather seen in context with management issues. For example, that you can ensure harvest of same sex and age classes (70%), ensure appropriate number of deer shot over a larger area (63%) and improve management of migratory animals (60%). Another important aspect is that most landowners also agree that cooperation facilitates the practical aspects of hunting (61%).

Divergent goals and conflicts between landowners are the main challenges of greater cooperation. From the asked questions of drawbacks, statements that involve interference between landowners are amongst the most agreed. For example, goals of other landowners are very different from my own (35%), I must relate to people I find difficult (31%) and other landowners do not want to cooperate (26%) (Figure 12). However, that red deer population differs too much between hunting fields (39%) seems to be the most important drawback with larger cooperation. Further, landowners with more damage on pastures are more likely to state that other landowner goals are very different from my own (Table 9).

Table 9: Generalized linear model. Dependent variable: Goals of other landowners are very different from my own.

Variable Estimate SE Z value P value

Intercept -0.9135 0.1385 -6.59 0.001

Serious damage 1.2775 0.2460 5.19 0.001

Some damage -0.0980 0.2486 -0.39 0.693

We were also interested to see if some benefits with cooperation changed if landowners participated in the practical hunt. Landowners who take part in in this act tend to agree more that cooperation facilitates the practical aspect of hunting (χ² = 7.26, df = 2, P = 0.02), results in less reporting and administrative duties (χ² = 6.40, df = 2, P = 0.04) and to meet

(33)

24

neighbours/ other hunters socially (χ²= 12.5, df = 2, P = < 0.001). None of the remaining questions under this topic were significantly different between landowners who hunt and not.

Figure 11: What is your view on the benefits of cooperation with other landowners?

Figure 12: what is your opinion on potential drawbacks and challenges of cooperation with other landowners related to red deer management?

21%

30%

42%

55%

60%

61%

63%

70%

25%

28%

30%

21%

26%

22%

18%

54%

42%

28%

24%

14%

17%

15%

12%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

I can increase my income from hunting (n=507) Less reporting and administrative duties (n=500)

Opportunity to meet neighbours/ other hunters socially (n=505)

Access to a larger area and more hunting licenses (n=508)

Better management of migratory animals (n=511) Facilitates the practical aspects of hunting (n=509) Appropriate number of deer is shot on a larger

area (n=513)

Ensure harvest of the same sex and age classes (n=510)

Agree Neutral Disagree

10%

12%

16%

19%

26%

31%

35%

39%

14%

30%

26%

31%

32%

23%

32%

28%

76%

58%

57%

50%

42%

46%

33%

32%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

I don’t see the need for landowner cooperation related to red deer management (n=504) Existing landowners involved in hunting field are not the correct ones because of migratory deers…

There is insufficient information on which to base a population managemant plan (n=499)

Cooperation requires too much additional paperwork/meetings (n=504) Other landowners do not want to cooperate (n=

505)

I must relate to people I find difficult (n=504) The goals of other landowners are very different

from my own (n=507)

Population situation differs too much between hunting fields (n=505)

(34)

25

To get a more thorough understanding about benefits and drawbacks, respondents were able to make up an opinion in open questions. Although few of the respondents used this

opportunity, some patterns emerged.

The most prominent challenge of greater cooperation in open questions is what is considered appropriate populations size (n= 21). The majority of written benefits are connected to improved management (n=17), this because they think harvest over a larger area is more efficient and an easier way to reduce the population size (n=6), but also because they believe you can distribute quotas to areas it seems more preferable (i.e., areas with browsing

damages) (n=5). Some sees greater cooperation as a positive effect for social and practical aspects (n=8), for example to recruit hunters and simplify hunting (i.e., enables more hunting forms).

Many of the written answers are due to a conflict of interest between landowners that experience browsing damages who feel they are a minority in relation to landowners who don’t see this as an issue (n=21). As an example, one landowner is stating “Serious damage problems on pastures, and few active farmers who becomes a minority on annual meetings.

The majority is composed of landowners who have no interest in crops, but with a desire to have a large population of deer”. Other interactions between landowners is also something that has some support (n=14). For example, enhanced discussion because of divergent values (n=6) and shearing of dividend from hunting (n=3)

3.8 Which improvements does landowners see as necessary in order to achieve better deer management

The majority of landowners think that improvements are necessary (figure 14). Seventy six percent of the respondents do also see the need for landowner cooperation in relation to red deer management. Only ten percent do not see this as any advantage at all (see figure 13).

Further, a larger proportion thinks that such cooperation is a necessity to achieve better deer management (53%).

The most agreed question under this topic is to improve common agreements on management aims within the municipality and across municipality borders (64%). Hence, a larger

proportion of landowners also think that there is a need for better monitoring to identify/understand changes in the deer population (54%).

(35)

26

Landowners believe that it is more important to harvest migratory- (39%) than stationary deer (30%). Moreover, respondents who states that red deer are migrating (enter or disappear) from their hunting field are more likely to agree that to harvest more migratory animals is necessary to achieve better deer management (figure 13). Further, if compering landowners who agree and disagree to improve cooperation between landowners, respondents who states that many or some migratory deer disappear from the area are more likely to see improved cooperation as an advantage (χ²=3.82, df= 1, P= 0.005). Red deer migration behaviour also influence what the individual landowner thinks about deer population at his/hers property (χ²=16.4, df= 4, P=

0.002), where those with stationary animals seems to believe that red deer population is largest (table 10).

Figure 13: Proportion agree in the question “More of the migratory animals need to be harvested” as a function of migratory behaviour (figure 4)

(36)

27

Table 10: What the landowner thinks about red deer population size at his/hers property in relation to migratory behaviour (figure 4).

Too large Appropriate Too low I don’t know

Disappear 21,1 % 47,4 % 24,1 % 7,5 %

Stationary 44,4 % 46,3 % 9,3 % 0,0 %

Enter 32,3 % 53,1 % 13,5 % 1,0 %

I don't know 15,0 % 60,0 % 15,0 % 10,0 %

A small proportion of landowners agree that increased size of vald will achieve better deer management (19%). This opinion do not change if red deer disappear, enter or are stationary within the hunting field area (χ²= 6.3, df= 4, P= 0.17). However, landowners who think that cooperation leads to better management of migratory animals are more willing to increase their vald size (χ²=15.2, df= 4, P= <0.001) (30,2% versus 10,3%).

There is more support for that management plan over large number of vald are a solution for better management (39%). That neighbouring valds harvest same sex and age classes is also something that is of importance (47%).

(37)

28

Figure 14: What improvements do you think are necessary in order to achieve better deer management?

18%

19%

29%

30%

39%

47%

53%

54%

64%

31%

25%

31%

36%

25%

29%

40%

35%

33%

29%

22%

51%

56%

40%

35%

37%

32%

22%

18%

14%

17%

14%

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

No Improvements are necessary (n=475) Increase the size of the valds (n=484) Municipality should get more involved in deer

management (n=486)

More of the stationary animals need to be harvested (n=484)

We need less detailed quotas in terms of age and sex distribution (n=486)

Establish population management plan over a larger number of valds (n=482)

More of the migratory animals need to be harvested (n=485)

Make sure neighbouring valds harvest similar sex and age classes (n=484)

Improve cooperation between landowners (n=483) Better monitoring to identify/understand changes in the

deer population (n=485)

Improved common agreements on management aims within the municipality and across municipality borders

(n=484)

(38)

29

4 Discussion

In this thesis we have explored Norwegian landowners’ perception and opinions regarding the management of red deer. Our survey reveals that landowners are pleased with present

management, but that these perceptions are influenced by several factors. Although in general satisfied, the majority also identify management issues with potential for improvement.

Cooperation is something that landowners regard as important to achieve management objectives, and these views are not only limited to self-centred interests, but are also considered in a larger perspective. However, it appears that some management objectives, such as forming larger management units, are perceived as challenging. Contrary to our predictions, we could not distinguish any relationship between the number of landowners in vald or hunting fields and degree of satisfaction with cooperation and organisation. Further, agreement to increase the vald size was low amongst landowners, and did not change drastically in relation to migratory behaviour.

Similar to red deer, the pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) has increased in population in the last decades (Madsen et al. 2014). During their long-distance migration, pink-footed geese frequently use areas in Norway as stopover sites. Because of large populations,

browsing damages on pastures have become confrontational within agriculture (Bjerke et al.

2014; Tombre et al. 2013). Collaboration and insight into landowners’ opinion and

motivations are thereby important for management success (Søreng et al. 2015). Management of goose stopover sites suggest that larger and more coherent management units are key management action. Expanding the collaboration and spatial scale of management are thus identified as main management challenges also within other taxa and for species that cross several municipality borders as well as country borders. However, similarities from our study are most likely to occur within other fields where a resource, such as deer, is unevenly

distributed and where the degree of influence differs between stakeholders (Austin et al.

2011).

What Does the Landowner Think? - A landowner survey about red deer management along the west coast of Norway